If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

How good is Kaman and what would he bring to the team that would make us so much better?

I think we'd go something like this as far as minutes go:

West (28)/Hansbrough (20)
Hibbert (31)/Kaman (17)

So is it worth taking him on? Would we be intending to re-sign him?

It's possible to work a 9 man rotation with our current starting 5, Kaman, Hill, Tyler, and Foster while giving West, Tyler, Hibbert, and Kaman all close to 30 minutes. The key is how many minutes would we play West at the 3. On offense he already plays more of a pick an pop game anyway and we don't have to have our sf shooting 3's. I think it could be done with Danny sliding over to back up the 2 West playing some at the 3 and Kaman playing some time at the 4 like he's done recently for the Hornets.
We'd have the biggest lineup in the NBA and it would give us some major advantages. It would also create some defensive challenges but we wouldn't have to stick with that lineup for long periods.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

It's possible to work a 9 man rotation with our current starting 5, Kaman, Hill, Tyler, and Foster while giving West, Tyler, Hibbert, and Kaman all close to 30 minutes. The key is how many minutes would we play West at the 3. On offense he already plays more of a pick an pop game anyway and we don't have to have our sf shooting 3's. I think it could be done with Danny sliding over to back up the 2 West playing some at the 3 and Kaman playing some time at the 4 like he's done recently for the Hornets.
We'd have the biggest lineup in the NBA and it would give us some major advantages. It would also create some defensive challenges but we wouldn't have to stick with that lineup for long periods.

Personally, I'd prefer to reduce Granger's minutes by a minute or two.....and actually surprised that DC is playing the most minutes. I can see why DC is playing the most minutes as the PG "running the show", but I'd really hope that his minutes be reduced to playing roughly 29 mpg....cuz I'd prefer to spread out the minutes among the 2nd unit where the 9 man rotation plays a minimum of 24 mpg.

Kaman was unwilling to accept playing a diminished role as a backup. He said last week that it was hard for him to play 15 to 25 minutes when he’s used to playing 30 to 35 minutes.

Unless Hansbrough plays 14 mpg for the rest of the season and Kaman is the one to play for 28 mpg....he's not happy playing a backup role in NOLA...I don't think that he would be happy playing a backup role ( even if it's for 2/3 of a shortened season ) behind Hibbert.

The Following User Says Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

Didn't realize he felt that way, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Drops my enthusiasm for this way down. Though I suppose he might feel different if he's playing those kinds of minutes on a contender instead of a doormat.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

Didn't realize he felt that way, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Drops my enthusiasm for this way down. Though I suppose he might feel different if he's playing those kinds of minutes on a contender instead of a doormat.

I'd feel this way if he had the chance to go to a contender....he'd choose a Team like Miami, OKC or Chicago...or some high-profile Team like the Clippers ( which is ironic ), the Knicks or the Celtics...but this is Indy we are talking about....we're not quite there yet. We aren't as much of a contender as we are on the tier and a half below the Top tier Teams.....IMHO the Pacers are in that tier of Teams that "will likely get to the 1st round of the Playoffs and the 2nd round IF they are lucky".

Unless Hansbrough plays 14 mpg for the rest of the season and Kaman is the one to play for 28 mpg....he's not happy playing a backup role in NOLA...I don't think that he would be happy playing a backup role ( even if it's for 2/3 of a shortened season ) behind Hibbert.

As I said above, it's very possible to give Kaman a role playing around 30 min. split between the 4/5 and still keep Hibbert, Tyler, and West at their current level of minutes. We just have to accept letting West play some at the 3 and Danny playing some of his time at the 2.
I'd like to see it in play.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

It's possible to work a 9 man rotation with our current starting 5, Kaman, Hill, Tyler, and Foster while giving West, Tyler, Hibbert, and Kaman all close to 30 minutes. The key is how many minutes would we play West at the 3.

I see playing Hans at the three as more viable.

West struggles with lateral movement and Hans is pretty good at it.

.

.

.

.

"I like our group of people," Ainge told USA Today. "I'm trying to teach them about basketball, and they're trying to teach me about analytics."

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

Oh, Good Lord. It's called a rookie contract, people! DC is still on his, and he was a low 1st round pick! YEESH.

Good grief! It's about how much Pendergraph's salary is for a 1 year player who missed all last season due to an injury. Why was he paid that much is the question? He played in 39 games his rookie year and missed all last season. He's making almost 2x's what McBob made last year, and McBob wasn't on a rookie contract. One would have to believe the PBO had to ok and signoff on the contract. Thus my original post.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

Good grief! It's about how much Pendergraph's salary is for a 1 year player who missed all last season due to an injury. Why was he paid that much is the question? He played in 39 games his rookie year and missed all last season. He's making almost 2x's what McBob made last year, and McBob wasn't on a rookie contract. One would have to believe the PBO had to ok and signoff on the contract. Thus my original post.

Surely that isn't right. He's got to be on a minimum deal. It would make absolutely zero sense if they gave him nearly double the minimum.

I don't know what Sportrac is but they have him at $1.6 million for 2 years, which sounds a lot better and more realistic. Hopefully they are right.

Hoopshype has him at $762,000 which is what I would feel is about right for him. Shamsports is more reliable on salary than Hoopshype, but it truly makes more sense that Hoopshype salary would be more correct than Shamsports 1.5 mil.

If in truth JP is being paid 1.5 mil, could the new CBA have something to do with it?

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

If in truth JP is being paid 1.5 mil, could the new CBA have something to do with it?

I'm no expert on the ins and outs of the agreement but I'm pretty comfortable in saying there is nothing in the new CBA that says a player, who nobody in their right mind would give a dime over the minimum to, has to be given double that amount.

Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

Today, we look at the third team that has been linked with the Hornets' Chris Kaman - the San Antonio Spurs. If you missed the earlier breakdowns of the Houston Rockets and the Indiana Pacers, those are here and here.
Kaman missed his third straight game last night, again not traveling with the team to Miami. As noted over the weekend, the Hornets cannot include Kaman in multiplayer deals until February 14th. Keep in mind, though, that this refers to the Hornets aggregating salaries on their end; Kaman cannot be traded in conjunction with other Hornets players before that date, but he can bring back any combination of players in an otherwise legal transaction. From a broader perspective, we're two weeks from the February 14th deadline, and waiting until then would give the Hornets a month to arrange a deal before the March 15th NBA trade deadline.
So hit the jump for some Spurs talk.

I won't rehash all the regulations again; the full versions of those are available in the two articles from above. Here is the quick summary though:

- Kaman can't be in multiplayer deals till February 14th, without trade exceptions
- Kaman's salary for trade purposes is $12.2M
- Hornets must take back between $8.13M and $18.3M in any trade to a team over the cap but under the tax.
The Houston Rockets were over the cap and under the tax so that specific range did indeed apply to them. The Pacers, on the other hand, were well beneath the cap, meaning they could theoretically take back the entirety of Kaman's contract for no return players.
It's unclear where the Spurs actually fall; one source has them above the luxury limit, but weirdly includes Antonio McDyess, who is no longer with the team, but may or may not be due money this year. Another source has them under the tax. In any case, parsing the specifics of a Spurs deal is far more complicated than any trade involving Houston or San Antonio. If the Spurs send back less salary in a Kaman deal than they receive, they appear likely to cross over the luxury threshold, regardless of where they stand right now.
For teams that are over the luxury tax, a different range of salary values applies, dictated by the old 125% matching rule. Under this scenario, the new range $9.76M to $15.25M. But clearly, only the lower limit would apply here; if the Spurs sent out more for Kaman than Kaman's contract value itself, the new 150% rule would come into play. So essentially, the lower limit should be governed by the 125% rule (as this would send San Antonio over the tax) and the upper limit by the 150% rule (as they'd be below the tax). Keeping in mind that this is all still variable since we don't know the Spurs' exact payroll, this results in a new range of $9.76M to $18.3M.*
*One last point - keep in mind that the Hornets can't actually legally get too close to the upper limit here because they themselves are only $4M below the tax threshold. If they surpass it, the 125% rule comes into play all over again, and the trade must be started from scratch.
And with that, we finally get to the Spurs roster.San Antonio Spurs

In a sense, San Antonio provides all the same problems as Indiana (limited pick options, limited exceptions) without possessing the Pacers' magic elixir (ridiculous amounts of cap space). Their own first round pick appears to be in the same range as Indiana's.
Additionally, only two contracts on their entire roster are expiring - those of Tim Duncan and Gary Neal. The Hornets' apparent search for "cap relief" as one of their trade criteria probably won't be answered here. In terms of talent, there might be some that's available. Richard Jefferson, for example, could be a possible inclusion in trades. The problem there, of course, is that he's due over $30M in salary through 2014; there's no possible way David Stern sanctions such a deal. And of course, a player like Jefferson would make little sense for a rebuilding team.
There's minimal young talent available otherwise. It's unlikely that San Antonio would trade Tiago Splitter, Kawhi Leonard, DeJuan Blair, or even Danny Green. That leaves the 27 year old Gary Neal, the 22 year old (and forgettable) James Anderson, and... Matt Bonner? And none of those players make enough money to create a legal trade anyway. If we're crossing out Ginobili, Parker, Splitter, Leonard, and Blair, I actually can't even come up with a legal trade that doesn't involve Richard Jefferson. Try your hand here, but it seems almost impossible.Plus Assets San Antonio Might Give Up:
1. 2012 1st Round PickRandom Pieces That Make Trades Work
1. ???
It's entirely possible I'm missing something huge here. I've been known to do that. But right now, the Spurs look easily the worst trading partner among the three reported suitors. Unless they can get a third team involved somehow, it appears Houston should be the target.